MCP 10 (3) pp.

259–271 Intellect Limited 2014

International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics

Volume 10 Number 3
© 2014 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/macp.10.3.259_1

Janet Wasko
University of Oregon

The study of the political

economy of the media in the
twenty-first century

Abstract Keywords
This discussion presents a brief overview of the establishment and expansion of the political economy
study of the political economy of media and communications, followed by atten- marketization
tion to some of current directions of this approach. Themes and concepts developed Marxist theory
by political economists of the media are reviewed, as well as internal and external digital capitalism
critiques of the approach. Recent developments are discussed, including the growth concentration
of integrated studies, the return to classic Marxist themes, integration of digital tech- commodification
nologies, and attention to policy and activism.

As I write this article, I am also working on a syllabus for a graduate class on

the study of the political economy of the media. This reminds me that Dallas
Smythe’s syllabi at the University of Illinois for two semester-long courses on
the political economy of communications in the early 1950s were chock full of
stimulating and relevant readings that were important for an understanding
of political economy and its application to media and communication. These
days, the amount of material written from this perspective is even more plen-
tiful. Not only are there more and more academics working in this area, but
the significance of understanding the political economy of media and commu-
nications is increasingly recognized outside academe. Thus, more interesting
and important publications are available to use in university courses.

259
Janet Wasko

1. PEM will be used here All of this is not surprising in light of developments in media and commu-
to signify various
approaches for the
nications worldwide that demand the kind of analysis offered by a political
study of media, economic perspective. Despite enhanced opportunities for communication
communication and offered by new media technologies, the media world is still often character-
information that draw
on the theories and ized by corporatization, commercialization, commodification and concentra-
methods utilized in tion. Thus, an analysis of these developments is an important (and, I would
the study of critical argue, necessary) context for understanding the meanings and impact of
political economy.
media products.
This discussion will present a brief overview of the establishment and
expansion of the study of the political economy of media and communications
(PEM1), followed by attention to some of current directions of this approach.

PEM foundations
The study of the PEM certainly did not begin in the twenty-first century, but
emerged with the evolution of mass media in the twentieth century with roots
in the work of classic political economists of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. Most often, those working within a political economic approach in
media and communication studies have adopted a Marxist/neo-Marxist theo-
retical framework and thus a critical perspective. However, the classic politi-
cal economists, such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo and others, set the stage
for the study of economic issues and grounded their work in social theory.
Classical political economy evolved as capitalism evolved, adding Karl Marx
and Frederick Engels’s historical materialism and class analysis in the nine-
teenth century, which offered a radical critique of the evolving capitalist
system through moral opposition to the unjust characteristics of that system.
Other ideas and concepts have contributed over the years, including argu-
ments from the Frankfurt School and other critical theorists.
Although neoclassical economics prevails today, a radical, critical or
Marxian political economy continues to grow, especially in the study of media.
Briefly, the primary concern of critical political economists is with the alloca-
tion of resources within capitalist societies. Through studies of ownership and
control, political economists document and analyse relations of power, class
systems and other structural inequalities. Critical political economists analyse
contradictions and suggest strategies for resistance and intervention using
methods drawn from history, economics, sociology and political science.
The academic study of communication has not always embraced economic
analysis, much less a political economic approach. During the 1940s and
1950s, US communication scholars focused primarily on individual effects and
psychologically oriented research, with little concern for the economic context
in which media are produced, distributed and consumed. PEM emerged as
a distinct approach in the 1950s and early 1960s, when Dallas Smythe and
Herbert Schiller focused their research and teaching around the political
economy of communication. They were influenced by institutional economics,
but inspired as well as by the general political and economic developments of
the period. In the 1970s, PEM was explicitly addressed in the work of Graham
Murdock, Peter Golding, Nicholas Garnham and Armand Mattelart. In the
midst of increasing interest in cultural studies, Murdock and Golding insisted
that, ‘The mass media are first and foremost industrial and commercial organ-
izations which produce and distribute commodities’ (1974: 205–06). Thus,
PEM is fundamentally interested in studying communication and media as
commodities produced by capitalist industries. Meanwhile, Mattelart outlined

260
 The study of the political economy …

a Marxist approach to the study of media and communication drawing directly

on Marx’s Capital (1867) in outlining the mode of production of communi-
cation, including production instruments, working methods and relations of
production, adding special attention to issues relating to the global extension
of media and communication or what he and others called cultural imperial-
ism (Mattelart and Siegelaub 1979).
Later, in the 1990s, Vincent Mosco offered an overview of the theories and
research related to PEM, defining political economy as ‘the study of the social
relations, particularly power relations, that mutually constitute the produc-
tion, distribution and consumption of resources’, including communication
resources (1996: 25). Mosco further delineated four central characteristics of
critical political economy, which are helpful in understanding this approach:
social change and history; social totality; moral philosophy; and praxis.

Expansion of PEM
Studying the political economy of communications is no longer a marginal
approach to media and communication studies in many parts of the world.
For instance, the Political Economy Section of the International Association
for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR) has grown dramatically
over the last decade or so, attracting numerous scholars from all over the
world. Increasingly, this approach is crucial to understanding the growth and
global expansion of media and information industries. As noted previously,
more researchers have turned to this perspective as a necessary and logical
way to study these developments.
However, it is certainly not the case, as argued by some mainstream
researchers, that PEM is narrowly interested in media ownership; nor is PEM
research primarily focused on journalism, as claimed by other media research-
ers. Indeed, a wide range of themes pertaining to media and communication
have been addressed by PEM scholars, as well as analyses of various forms of
media, communication, culture and information. And as new scholars direct
their attention to studying PEM, an even broader range of issues and themes
have emerged. Some of the general themes that are fundamental to this
approach are offered here, with a sample of research that exemplifies these
themes.

General themes
It is clear that the general process of marketization has moved rapidly around
the world during the last few decades. Communication and information have
become key components of this marketization process but have also devel-
oped as significant industries. In many countries, public media institutions
have been privatized, along with other public institutions, opening additional
markets for growing transnational media and entertainment conglomerates. In
addition, new communication and information systems, such as the Internet,
are developing as commercialized space, contrary to promises of public access
and control. This commercialization process – including the growth of adver-
tising and public relations – has been accompanied by an ever-expanding
consumer culture, thus prompting the term ‘cultural capitalism’ as a descrip-
tor for the current period (see Murdock and Wasko 2007).
A good deal of PEM research has focused on the evolution of mass
communications/media as commodities that are produced and distributed by
profit-seeking organizations in capitalist industries, or in other words, media

261
Janet Wasko

as business. The trends that Murdock and Golding identified in 1974 have
expanded and intensified, not only within traditional media industries but
also across industrial divisions into newly converged businesses. Analysis of
media as business has involved various concepts, including but not limited to
the following:
Commodification/commercialization. Increasingly, media and communica-
tion resources have become commodities – products and services that are
sold by profit-seeking companies to buyers or consumers. In addition, more
and more of the media landscape is filled with commercial messages and the
privatization of media outlets continues.
Diversification/synergy. As media companies have expanded, new lines of
business have been added in a process of diversification. While media indus-
tries often begin with a relatively large number of differentiated companies,
these industries today are typically dominated by huge media-entertainment
conglomerates that are involved in a wide range of diversified activities. There
is also the potential for the various businesses owned by these large diversi-
fied conglomerates to work together to more effectively market products, thus
producing a synergy that maximizes profits and decreases risk.
Horizontal/vertical integration. As media corporations have grown larger
and more profitable, they often have added companies that are in the same
line of business, thus integrating horizontally. Not only have such companies
expanded their range of businesses, but with new distribution technologies and
deregulated markets, media companies have integrated vertically by adding
companies in the same supply chain or at different stages of production.
Concentration. Of course, one of the major issues pertaining to the media
business is the level of competition in various markets. While a competitive
market is the avowed goal of capitalism, there is an inevitable tendency for
markets to become concentrated, due to any number of factors (as identified
by Murdock and Golding (1974), and elsewhere). This is especially significant
for media markets, where the provision of news and public information is vital
for informed citizenship and where the provision of diversified entertainment
can facilitate cultural and personal development. It is obvious that in many
situations (such as in the United States or in the global market for blockbuster
films), a handful of conglomerates dominate the media landscape. By docu-
menting the actual level of competition (or lack of competition), PEM chal-
lenges the myth of the competitive marketplace under late capitalism. Political
economists also are keenly interested in the consequences of such media
concentration. For example, much attention has been focused on the influence
of concentration on the availability and quality of news, as well as the ‘block-
buster complex’ and the homogenization of content in cultural industries.
Political economists of communications have investigated these trends
through theoretical discussions as well as at various levels of analysis with
studies of specific commodities, individual corporations and media industries,
as well as national and global media systems. Political economists in parts of
the world other than North America and Europe have also explored differ-
ent regional dynamics. In addition, PEM has concentrated special attention
to issues relating to international communication, transnationalization and
(more recently) globalization.
Again, there is a wide range of political economic studies related to media,
communications and information. Not every study is devoted to document-
ing media concentration or ownership, as some outside the approach have
claimed. A few of those areas are briefly mentioned here.

262
 The study of the political economy …

Historical studies
Most PEM research incorporates historical analysis, for it is essential to docu-
ment change as well as continuity. Certainly, tendencies and trends have been
observed across media, but also many notable historical studies have traced
the development of specific media. Some examples would include Duboff’s
(1984) historical analysis of the telegraph, Becker’s (1993) work on the tele-
phone, Dan Schiller’s examination of the infrastructure of cellular telephony
(2007), and Winseck and Pike’s (2007) research on the rise of global media.
Historical work on the film industry has included Guback’s (1969) research on
the international film industry and Pendakur’s (1990) work on the historical
dominance of the US film industry in Canada.

Media and labour

Since the 1970s and 1980s, there has been a steadily growing body of work
aimed at understanding the role of labour in the media. This area is funda-
mental to PEM, as relations of production and class issues are key theoreti-
cal foundations for this approach and essential for assessing media power.
Again, despite critiques that claim PEM ignores labour issues, the research
has been consistent. Numerous examples could be cited, but only a few of
the most recent include Miller et al. (2001/2008), McKercher (2002), Fones-
Wolf (2006), Kumar (2008), McKercher and Mosco (2007), and Mosco and
McKercher (2008).

Media and state relations

Even though studies of ownership patterns and the dynamics of corporate
control are essential, political economic analysis is much more than merely
identifying and then condemning those who control media and communi-
cation resources. To understand the media’s role in society, it is essential
to understand relationships between media power and state power, as well
as the media’s relationships with other economic sectors. Interrelationships
between media and communication industries and sites of power in society
are necessary for the complete analysis of communications. This process of
‘myth-busting’ challenges many common assumptions about economic and
political systems, especially the notions of pluralism, free enterprise, compe-
tition and so forth. Work in this area has included analysis of the state’s
role in allocating communication resources and protecting corporate inter-
ests, as well as corporate efforts to lobby for such support. Other work has
focused on regulation, policy and intellectual property (e.g. Streeter 1996;
Calabrese and Burgelman 1999; Bettig 1997), as well as governments’ use
of communication resources, especially for military purposes (for instance,
Schiller 2011).

Media and democracy

Political economists also have discussed media and communications specifi-
cally in relation to the public sphere, public citizenship and democracy. While
acknowledging the powerful role that capital plays in media, researchers have
argued that this relationship has a direct bearing on citizenship and public
participation. These themes have characterized some of the work of Murdock,
Golding and Garnham, as well as many, many others, such as Robert
McChesney, Robert Hackett, Andrew Calabrese and Cinzia Padovani.

263
Janet Wasko

The evolution and critique of PEM

As PEM has grown and evolved over the years, there has been lively debate
within the tradition as well as critiques from other scholars. One of the most
well-known discussions has been dubbed ‘The Blindspot Debate’ and was
initiated by Dallas Smythe in 1977 when he pointed out that the main product
of media was audiences, which were sold by media to advertisers. Furthermore,
he maintained that audiences’ exposure to advertising should be considered
labour that added value to the audience commodity. A lively debate ensued,
however, more recently, with the increasing spread of privatized, advertiser-
supported media, the audience commodity concept has been accepted by
communication theorists other than political economists and developed further
by new PEM researchers (see McGuigan and Manzerolle 2014).
Distinctions also have been made between different perspectives based
on world regions. In his 1996 overview, Mosco pointed out that British/
European political economists have generally attempted to ‘integrate commu-
nication research within various neo-Marxian theoretical traditions’. On the
other hand, North American political economy, drawing on both Marxian
and institutional approaches, ‘has been driven more explicitly by a sense of
injustice that the communication industry has become an integral part of a
wider corporate order which is both exploitative and undemocratic’ (1996: 19).
Mosco also described another variation that might be called Third-World PEM
research, which relies on dependency and world systems theory, as well as
other neo-Marxist traditions. This type of research has focused on challenging
the modernization paradigm and analysing various aspects of globalization
processes (see, for instance, Becerra and Mastrini 2011; Bolaño et al. 2012).
Attention also has been given to the distinctions between PEM approaches
by David Hesmondhalgh (2002), who identified the ‘Schiller–McChesney tradi-
tion’ (as opposed to a ‘cultural industries approach’). He identified this tradi-
tion as the criticism of US media systems, especially media concentration, as
presented by Herb Schiller and continued in the 1990s by Robert McChesney
and others (e.g., Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky [1988] with their prop-
aganda model). Hesmondhalgh argues that the Schiller–McChesney tradition
has provided invaluable documentation and analysis of the cultural industries.
However, Hesmondhalgh feels that this version of PEM has shortcomings, in
that it still ‘underestimates’ contradictions in the system, fails to explain specific
conditions of cultural industries, pays more attention to production rather than
consumption, and mostly ignores ‘symbol creators’, while focusing most often
on information-based media than on entertainment-oriented media.
More recently, Winseck and Jin (2011) have argued that political econo-
mists studying the media need to pay more attention to empirical evidence
and documentation, and have called for a broader definition of the approach
that would include institutional and other types of analysis. Further distinc-
tions and critiques are offered in Wasko et al. (2011) and Fitzgerald (2012).

Political economy and cultural studies

Special attention may be needed for the relationship between PEM and cultural
studies, as these two approaches are often identified (rightly or wrongly) as
the primary and sometimes competing ways of critically examining media.
Though PEM and cultural studies focus on different areas of enquiry or objects
of study, it has been argued that both approaches are needed for a complete
critical analysis of culture and media.

264
 The study of the political economy …

However, PEM is sometimes considered by cultural studies scholars to

be too narrow, deterministic and economistic, despite the broad definitions
and wide range of research outlined above. Similar to Hesmondalgh’s critique
of the Schiller–McChesney tradition, many have charged that PEM overall is
primarily focused on the economic or the production side of the communica-
tion process, neglecting texts, discourse, audiences and consumption. In addi-
tion, a simplistic notion of ideology is ascribed to political economists, with
little room allowed for resistance or subversion by audience members.
Most recently, a number of ‘new’ approaches have emerged in media/
cultural studies, including creative industries, convergence culture, produc-
tion culture, production studies, cultural economy and media industry studies.
Some of these approaches explicitly reject a political economic approach for
some of the same reasons that some cultural studies scholars have shunned
the approach over the years.
Over the years, political economists have defended and expanded their
theoretical positions in light of some of these critiques, clarifying extreme
and inaccurate accusations, but also responding to reasonable criticism (for
instance, see Murdock and Golding 1974; Golding and Murdock 1991; Wasko
and Meehan 2013; Meehan and Wasko 2013). On the other hand, some polit-
ical economists have found certain cultural studies scholarship to be lack-
ing consistent and strong analysis of the institutional or structural context of
cultural consumption, and focusing too narrowly on issues relating to media
texts, identity and audience reception. Especially problematic are studies that
argue that the audience’s alternative interpretations of media texts represent
a kind of subversive resistance to and undermining of dominant ideological
definitions and thus are politically liberating.
For many, however, there is still a need for an intellectual alliance between
political economy and cultural studies. Such an integration of approaches is
necessary, not only to fully examine the complexities of mediated commu-
nication but also to challenge other celebratory approaches in communica-
tion research. As Murdock has argued, ‘We need to … work towards the
construction of a more complete account of the central dynamics of contem-
porary culture and to mobilize those insights to defend the symbolic resources
required to extend the rights and duties of citizenship in the service of revital-
izing democracy’ (1995: 94). Examples of studies that integrate cultural studies
and political economy are discussed below.

PEM in the twenty-first century

Mosco concluded in 1996 that even though there are variations, most versions
of PEM at least attempt to decentre the media and emphasize capital, class,
contradiction, conflict and oppositional struggles (1996: 20–21). That tradi-
tion has continued as the approach has moved into the twenty-first century.
Beyond the proliferation of PEM studies, other trends might be noted to illus-
trate the evolution of this approach.

Integrated studies
The tension between different critical approaches discussed above would
seem to be less of a problem these days based on the increasing number of
studies that actually succeed in integrating various critical approaches. Many
scholars working in cultural studies, international communications, feminism,
race-ethnic studies and other forms of social research have produced work

265
Janet Wasko

that integrates these perspectives with PEM. In other words, they embrace
a political economic perspective as only one of the lenses they use to under-
stand media. This outpouring of research and its recognition of structuration
and agency – whether individual, collective, corporate or institutional – have
been ongoing for decades. For many contextual scholars, the conceptual or
methodological divisions between or among political economy, cultural stud-
ies and social research have essentially collapsed, yielding scholarship that
synthesizes these areas.
A few studies have combined political economy with other approaches
to examine a particular media phenomenon holistically. An excellent earlier
example is Gripsrud’s (1995) study of Dynasty, which traces the programme’s
production context, discusses its textual elements, as well as examining its
distribution and reception. In my own work on the Walt Disney Company,
the history and political economy of the company is presented, along with
various readings of Disney’s texts and people’s reception of and resistance
to Disney products (Wasko 2001). Increasingly, scholars are successfully inte-
grating political economy and cultural studies to achieve more complete and
nuanced analyses. Examples include Babe (2010), Kapur (2005) and Maxwell
(2001).
The integration of feminism and political economy is well represented in
Meehan and Riordan (2002), in which contributors examined media repre-
sentations, consumer practices and commoditization. Byerly and Ross’s (2006)
collection considers how gender is implicated in media industries, among
other issues. Meanwhile, Stabile’s (2006) study of gender, race and crime
news combines historiography with textual, class and industrial analysis.
Collaborative research projects have also brought together researchers
from different critical approaches and often from different national settings.
For example, in the Global Disney Audiences Project, an international group
of researchers using various critical approaches and multiple methodolo-
gies documented people’s experiences of Disney’s products and penetra-
tion into local economies (Wasko et al. 2001). Another example of a project
that addressed the commonalities and tensions between political economy
and audience analysis was the Lord of the Rings Project, which examined the
distribution of the film as well as fans’ reactions (Barker and Mathijs 2007).
Meanwhile, Biltereyst and Meers (2011) have recently made important contri-
butions to the integration of political economy and audience research.
Most often, these integrated approaches maintain the essence of politi-
cal economy, in that the research examines the relationships of power that
are involved in the production, distribution and consumption of media and
communication resources within a wider social context. PEM still privileges
issues relating to class power, not to the exclusion of other relationships,
however, and emphasizes the complex and contradictory nature of such rela-
tionships. Most important, PEM challenges media and communication devel-
opment that undermines equitable and democratic societies.

Back to basics
Another interesting development within PEM is the return to classic themes
and concepts to explain the evolution of media and communications. One
of the concepts that has been revived is the idea of the commons – defined
by Wikipedia as ‘… cultural and natural resources accessible to all
members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water,

266
 The study of the political economy …

and a habitable earth. These resources are held in common, not

owned privately’. The notion of the commons has been revived in various
ways. For instance, there is even an International Association for the Study of
the Commons (IASC), described as ‘… a multidisciplinary academic organiza-
tion focused on building and mobilizing knowledge around many integrated
social-economic and environmental issues with a particular focus on how
to avoid the “tragedy of the commons”’. One of its founding members was
Elinor Ostrom, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009 for her work
that focused on this concept (see, for instance, Hess and Ostrum 2011).
Several media scholars have also integrated the notion of the commons
in their analysis of the current media climate. Graham Murdock has written
extensively about and ‘… the long struggle to provide cultural and commu-
nicative resources for full citizenship by reclaiming the idea of the commons’,
and more specifically about the concept of a digital commons. Ben Birkinbine
has recently worked on the notion of the commons in relation to the free and
open software movement, while Dorothy Kidd has written about independent
and grassroots media as an example of media commoning practice.
The concept of the commons has been integrated into a myriad of
media related projects, including media centres, websites, etc. For instance,
Wikimedia Commons is ‘… a media file repository making available public
domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and
video clips) to everyone, in their own language’.
In addition, many scholars these days are calling for a reinvigoration of
Marxist analysis (see, for instance, Terry Eagleton’s Why Marx Was Right,
2011). This return to classic Marxist analysis has been a recent trend with
some PEM scholars. As noted previously, most critical PEM scholarship draws
on Marxist theory and practice, but a few media scholars and/or sociologists
have emphasized the need to use Marxist theory more explicitly. Christian
Fuchs (2008) has been especially active in these efforts, while John Bellamy
Foster represents a sociologist who uses Marxist theory to study environmen-
tal and media issues (see McChesney et al. 1998).

The digital
Special attention has also been devoted to the evolution of digital technol-
ogy, with political economists examining a range of issues. Digital labour has
been analysed in a number of studies (e.g. Fuchs 2014), and is the focus of
a recent special issue of tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. The
issue is entitled, ‘Philosophers of the World Unite! Theorising Digital Labour
and Virtual Work – Definitions, Dimensions and Forms’, in which the editors
explain that it ‘… aims to contribute to building a theoretical framework
for the critical analysis of digital labour, virtual work, and related concepts
that can initiate further debates, inform empirical studies, and inspire social
struggles connected to work and labour in and beyond digital capitalism’.
Meanwhile, big data and cloud technology have been studied by Mosco
(2014), while Burkart (2014) has recently analysed the policies and politics
surrounding digitization. Important historical perspectives on the digitiza-
tion process have been offered as well, with reminders that ‘new’ media
technologies often present a good deal of continuity, especially in terms of
corporate involvement, commercialization and commodification. (See, for
instance, Wu [2010] for a historical overview of corporate intervention in
new media development.)

267
Janet Wasko

Policy and activism

A vital component of PEM is praxis, which sometimes may seem to be miss-
ing if one only focuses on academic work. Many (if not most) PEM scholars
incorporate issues related to policy and activism in their research, as well as
working outside academic settings to promote media change, as well as social
change generally. One of the best examples in the United States is the Free
Press and Free Press Action Fund, co-founded by Robert McChesney, a scholar
who works in the PEM tradition. The Free Press is described as follows: ‘We
are nonpartisan organizations fighting to save the free and open Internet, curb
runaway media consolidation, protect press freedom, and ensure diverse voices
are represented in our media’. A multitude of other examples from around the
world could be cited, from international media projects to local campaigns that
resist corporate media and support independent media alternatives.

Undeclared political economists

Some communication scholars have contributed valuable studies that call
attention to political economic characteristics of media/communication but do
not claim to be political economists or use the same terminology as those
more closely associated with the approach. For instance, some international
approaches are grounded in political economy or incorporate PEM concepts
without declaring a commitment to the perspective (e.g., Joseph Straubhaar,
Jeremy Tunstall, Oliver Boyd-Barrett, Ben Bagdikian, Robert White and many,
many others). These scholars explore some of the same issues and share a
critical perspective with political economists. In other words, they adhere to
Mosco’s description of critical communications research: they challenge the
status quo, analyse media in its social context, and adopt a moral position or
work for change (Mosco and Wasko 1983).

Conclusion
The study of political economy of the media and communications continues to
grow and evolve. Again, this is not so surprising given the growing importance
of the media and its industrial development within an expanding interna-
tional market system. Developments during the last decade need to be viewed
historically, a fundamental starting point for PEM. In other words, a careful
analysis of capitalism, its structures, the consequences of those structures and
the contradictions that abound is more than ever relevant and needed, as
the recent reinvigoration of Marxist analysis attests. As Jean Paul Sartre once
said, ‘Marxism remains the philosophy of our time because we have not gone
beyond the circumstances which engendered it’ (1963: 30). A similar argu-
ment could be made for the study of political economy of the media.

References
Babe, R. (2010), Cultural Studies and Political Economy: Toward a New Integration,
Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Barker, M. and Mathijs, E. (eds) (2007), Watching Lord of the Rings, New York:
Peter Lang.
Becerra, M. and Mastrini, G. (2011), ‘Communication economy paths: A
Latin American approach’, in J. Wasko, G. Murdock and H. Sousa (eds),
The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications, Malden, MA: Wiley
Blackwell, pp. 109–26.

268
 The study of the political economy …

Becker, J. (1993), ‘The political economy of early telephony in Germany’, in J.

Wasko, V. Mosco and M. Pendakur (eds), Illuminating the Blindspots: Essays
Honoring Dallas W. Smythe, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 111–31.
Bettig, R. (1997), Copyrighting Culture: The Political Economy of Intellectual
Property, Boulder, CO: Westview.
Biltereyst, D. and Meers, P. (2011), ‘The political economy of audiences’, in J.
Wasko, G. Murdock and H. Sousa (eds), The Handbook of Political Economy
of Communications, Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 415–35.
Birkinbine, B. (2014), ‘Incorporating the commons: Towards a political
economy of corporate involvement in free and open source software’,
Paper presented at International Association for Media and Communication
Research Conference, Hyderabad, India, July.
Bolaño, C., Mastrini, G. and Sierra, F. (eds) (2012), Political Economy,
Communication and Knowledge: A Latin American Perspective, New York:
Hampton.
Burkart, P. (2014), Pirate Politics: The New Information Policy Contests,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Byerly, C. M. and Ross, K. (eds) (2006), Women and Media: A Critical
Introduction, Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Calabrese, A. and Burgelman, J. (eds) (1999), Communication, Citizenship and
Social Policy, Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.
Duboff, R. (1984), ‘The rise of communications regulation: The Telegraph
Industry, 1844–1880’, Journal of Communication, 34: 3, pp. 52–66.
Eagleton, T. (2011), Why Marx Was Right, London: Yale University Press.
Fitzgerald, S. W. (2012), Corporations and Cultural Industries: Time Warner,
Bertelsmann, and News Corporation, Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Fones-Wolf, E. (2006), Waves of Opposition: Labor and the Struggle for Democratic
Radio, Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Fuchs, C. (2008), Internet and Society: Social Theory in the Information Age, New
York: Routledge.
—— (2014), Digital Labour and Karl Marx, New York: Routledge.
Golding, P. and Murdock, G. (1991), ‘Culture, communication, and political
economy’, in J. Curran and M. Gurevitch (eds), Mass Media and Society,
London: Edward Arnold, pp. 15–32.
Gripsrud, J. (1995), The Dynasty Years: Hollywood Television and Critical Media
Studies, London: Routledge.
Guback, T. H. (1969), The International Film Industry: Western Europe and
America since 1945, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Herman, E. and Chomsky, N. (1988), Manufacturing Consent: A Political
Economy of the Mass Media, New York: Pantheon.
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2002), The Cultural Industries, London: Sage.
Hess, C. and Ostrum, E. (2011), Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From
Theory to Practice, Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Kapur, J. (2005), Coining for Capital: Movies, Marketing, and the Transformation
of Childhood, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Kidd, D. (2003), ‘Indymedia.org: A new communications commons’, in M.
McCaughey and M. D. Ayers (eds), Cyberactivism: Online Activism in
Theory and Practice, New York: Routledge, pp. 47–69.
Kumar, D. (2008), Outside the Box: Corporate Media, Globalization and the UPS
Strike, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Mattelart, A. and Siegelaub, S. (eds) (1979), Communication and Class Struggle,
Vol. I: Capitalism, Imperialism, New York: International General.

269
Janet Wasko

Maxwell, R. (ed.) (2001), Culture Works: The Political Economy of Culture,

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
McChesney, R. W., Wood, E. M. and Foster, J. B. (eds) (1998), Capitalism and
the Information Age, New York: Monthly Review.
McGuigan, L. and Manzerolle, V. (2014), The Audience Commodity in a Digital
Age, New York: Peter Lang.
McKercher, C. (2002), Newsworkers Unite: Labor, Convergence and North
American Newspapers, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
McKercher, C. and Mosco, V. (eds) (2007), Knowledge Workers in the Information
Society, Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Meehan, E. R. and Riordan, E. (eds) (2002), Sex and Money: Feminism and
Political Economy in the Media, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Meehan, E. R. and Wasko, J. (2013), ‘In defence of a political economy of the
media’, Javnost-Public, 20: 1, pp. 39–54.
Miller, T., Govil, N., McMurria, J. and Maxwell, R. (2001/2008), Global
Hollywood, London: BFI.
Mosco, V. (1996), The Political Economy of Communication: Rethinking and
Renewal, London: Sage.
—— (2014), To the Cloud: Big Data in a Turbulent World, New York: Paradigm
Publishers.
Mosco, V. and McKercher, C. (2008), The Laboring of Communication: Will
Knowledge Workers of the World Unite?, Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Mosco, V. and Wasko, J. (eds) (1983), The Critical Communications Review.
Vol. 1: Labor, the Working Class and the Media, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Murdock, G. (1995), ‘Across the great divide: Cultural analysis and the condi-
tion of democracy’, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12:1, pp. 89–94.
—— (2011), ‘Political economies as moral economies: Commodities, gifts and
public goods’, in J. Wasko, G. Murdock and H. Sousa (eds), The Handbook
of Political Economy of Communications, Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell,
pp. 331–57.
Murdock, G. and Golding, P. (1974), ‘For a political economy of mass commu-
nications’, in R. Miliband and J. Saville (eds), Socialist Register, London:
Merlin, pp. 205–34.
Murdock, G. and Wasko, J. (eds) (2007), Media in the Age of Marketization,
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Pendakur, M. (1990), Canadian Dreams and American Control: The Political Economy
of the Canadian Film Industry, Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Sartre, J. P. (1963), Search for a Method, New York: Alfred Knopf.
Schiller, D. (2007), How to Think About Information, Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Schiller, D. (2011), ‘The militarization of US communications’, in J. Wasko,
G. Murdock and H. Sousa (eds), The Handbook of Political Economy of
Communications, Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 331–57.
Smythe, D. W. (1977), ‘Communications: Blindspot of western Marxism’,
Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1: 3, pp. 1–27.
Stabile, C. (2006), White Victims, Black Villains: Gender, Race, and Crime News
in US Culture, London: Routledge.
Streeter, T. (1996), Selling the Air: A Critique of the Policy of Commercial
Broadcasting in the United States, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wasko, J. (2001), Understanding Disney: The Manufacture of Fantasy, Cambridge,
UK: Polity.

270
 The study of the political economy …

Wasko, J. and Meehan, E. R. (2013), ‘Critical crossroads or parallel routes?:

Political economy and new approaches to studying media industries and
cultural products’, Cinema Studies Journal, 52: 3, Spring, pp. 150–157.
Wasko, J., Murdock, G. and Sousa, H. (eds) (2011), The Handbook of the Political
Economy of Communications, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell/IAMCR.
Wasko, J., Phillips, M. and Meehan, E. R. (2001), Dazzled by Disney? The Global
Disney Audiences Project, Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Winseck, D. and Jin, D. Y. (eds) (2011), The Political Economies of Media: The
Transformation of the Global Media Industries, London: Bloomsbury.
Winseck, D. R. and Pike, R. M. (2007), Communication and Empire: Media,
Markets and Globalization, 1860–1930, Durham, NC: Duke University.
Wu, T. (2010), The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, New
York: Vintage.

Suggested citation
Wasko, J. (2014), ‘The study of the political economy of the media in the
twenty-first century’, International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics
10: 3, pp. 259–271, doi: 10.1386/macp.10.3.259_1

Contributor details
Janet Wasko is the Knight Chair in Communication Research at University
of Oregon in Eugene, Oregon, USA. She is the author, co-author or editor of
nineteen books, including Understanding Disney: The Manufacture of Fantasy
and How Hollywood Works. Her research and teaching focuses on the political
economy of media, especially the political economy of film, as well as issues
relating to democracy and media. She currently serves as the President of the
International Association for Media and Communication Research.
Contact: School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon,
Eugene, Oregon 97403, USA.
E-mail: jwasko@uoregon.edu

Janet Wasko has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work in the format that was
submitted to Intellect Ltd.

271
intellect books & journals Performing Arts Visual Arts Film Studies Cultural & Media Studies

Intellect books
publishers of original thinking | www.intellectbooks.com

The Cultural Set Up of Comedy We are here to support your

ideas and get them published.
Affective Politics in the United States
To send us your new book
Post 9/11 or journal proposal, please
Julie Webber download a questionnaire
from www.intellectbooks.com.
ISBN 978-1-78320-031-3 | 192pp
£19.95, $30.00 | 2013
Paperback | 230x170mm
eBook available
Part of the Cultural Studies Toward Transformative Curriculum
and Pedagogy series

How do various forms of comedy – including stand up, satire

and film and television – transform contemporary invocations
of nationalism and citizenship in youth cultures? And how are
attitudes about gender, race and sexuality transformed through
comedic performances on social media? The Cultural Set Up of
Comedy seeks to answer these questions by examining comedic
performances by Chris Rock and Louis C.K., news parodies like
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report, the To view our catalogue or order
role of satire in the Arab Spring and women’s groundbreaking
our books and journals visit
comedic performances in television and the film Bridesmaids.
www.intellectbooks.com
Breaking with the usual cultural studies debates over how to
conceptualize youth, the book instead focuses on the comedic
cultural and political scripts that frame affective strategies Intellect, The Mill, Parnall Road,
post-9/11. Fishponds, Bristol, BS16 3JG.

Julie Webber is associate professor in the Department of Politics Tel: +44 (0) 117 9589910
at Illinois State University, USA. Fax: +44 (0) 117 9589911
Copyright of International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics is the property of Intellect
Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.